Bush's Solicitor General, Ted Olson, Joins Legal Team To Support Gay Marriage

America Blog:

We wrote last night about how Ted Olson, George Bush's former Solicitor General (the guy who argues the administration's cases before the Supreme Court) - and the guy who argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court on behalf of Bush - is now teaming up with attorney David Boies to launch a federal legal challenge to Prop 8 in Cailfornia.

Read the whole story: America Blog

Comments

[BambooHarvester]

Hey Ted what's that on ya head ?
~

[GIRfan]

Wonderful news.

[kewe]

I don't buy the 'ill-timed' argument. the people who set equality back are the lawyers who went to the state supreme court and argued - against known and enormous odds - a revision versus amendment case and not a civil rights case. they forced the court into the decision they voted 6-1, and if you read their decision, its clear they had no choice. even during the proceedings the judges questioned the petitioner's logic for presenting their case that way.

i'm stunned by supposed LGBT and ACLU groups saying things like "its not the right time". Are you friggin kidding me? There is NEVER a better time to fight by all means necessary for civil rights than today, everyday. Did MLK wake up one morning and say "hmmm, i better wait for a better political climate. or a different supreme court make up before i say anything."?

[Lance734]

"the people who set equality back are the lawyers who went to the state supreme court and argued - against known and enormous odds - a revision versus amendment case and not a civil rights case."

I feel your passion kewe, but I think your position is a bit misguided. The revision/amendment tack was the ONLY argument that could be made against Prop 8. Prop 8, once passed, became part of the CA Constitution, so no other argument would work except saying that the process for inserting it into the Constitution was invalid. I'm not sure what you mean when you say they should have argued a "civil rights case" to the CA Supreme Court. If there's something else you meant to say, please enlighten me, because I don't know how else to read your claim.

"i'm stunned by supposed LGBT and ACLU groups saying things like "its not the right time". Are you friggin kidding me? There is NEVER a better time to fight by all means necessary for civil rights than today, everyday."

Yeah, idealistically you're right. But practically, the concern is that a loss could set the movement back DECADES. What if this turns out to be the Plessy v. Ferguson (SCOTUS case allowing segregation) of our time? It took nearly 60 years before the SCOTUS undercut that awful decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Given the conservatives on the federal bench, this is a valid fear.

[dsws]

My first reaction was that there was no way the ultra-conservative majority would do anything but the Dred Scott of our time (never mind Plessy v Ferguson). However, Anthony Kennedy is still the swing vote, and he sided with sanity in Lawrence v Texas. Maybe Boies and Olson are sincere and know what they're doing.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Olson and Boles,

YOU two had BETTER get the support of major LGBT organizations BEFORE you press this case, cuz if you LOSE, and set a presidence NATIONALY that hinders our equality.

YOU TWO won't have a spider hole DEEP ENOUGH to hide ANY WHERE on Earth, we won't find you.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

FOLLOW the money behind this pairing LGBT organizations and ACLU don't want it.
THIS STINKS of trying to get a Supreme court ruling AGAINST gays.

I hope our organizations can stop the Gore lawyer.

[Paulied]

I don't think that either would stake their reputations on something this high profile that they didn't think they could win. Furthermore, I highly doubt either would risk disbarrment by not representing their clients in good faith. I personally think Olson sees the writing on the wall for the future of the republican party. They have no place to go but down if they don't get passed this anti-gay christian platform; those old people are dying out and this bigotry leaves a bad taste for younger voters.

[Irishfly]

Now if only the Democrats would grow some and get behind this...

[jbrantow]

Well worth the time reading the following....
full article at the link http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/bush-solicitor-general-ted-olson.html
I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimate­ly-express­ed will of the people of California. "It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution," Olson said. "The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

[jbrantow]

Olson and Boies on Larry King right now.

[jbrantow]

Watch their press conference...
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/

[The Ghost]

Gay Marriage, Legalizing Drugs, and Legalizing Sex Work are ALL CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPALS!

[dsws]

Libertarian is not the same as conservative. Conservatism is about tradition and order. Libertarianism is about freedom and individualism. They currently intersect on a range of economic issues, but they're just as much in tension with each other as either is with liberalism.

[JTHC75]

Good for Olson (and Boies--let's not forget him).

My understanding is that he's doing this pro bono, so it's not for the money. My guess is that he probably knows plenty of gay people and realizes that this banning of gay marriage is an affront to our civil liberties. For the record, I'm a Republican who supports gay marriage and I hope Boies and Olson kick ass all the way.. Talk about the most formidable legal team in recent times!

[AngryCitizen]

I fully support this move. I have always said, this will have to be settled at the Federal level. This state by state crap is for the birds. It creates two sets of rights in this country. If the SCOTUS turns down marriage equality, they will be gutting parts of the Constitution and than we will really know where we stand as a country.

[Agentprovokatur]

This is a red herring.

It is self-serving and ill timed at best, and possibly an actual attempt to sabotage the fight for Same Sex Marriage by bringing a court case to a currently hostile U.S. Supreme Court.

The organizations that have been in this fight for years had this to say after the California Supreme Court ruling:

"In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back."

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/press_center/lawsuits_set_back_progress.php

Don't buy into this Trojan Horse.

Or like the Trojan's we may find ourselves getting scre wed.

[EmeraldWorld]

Exactly. I read an interesting argument by a political scientist about Roe v. Wade. He argued that abortion was already starting to become legalized throughout the country and the only impact Roe v. Wade had was to create what we call today the "pro-life" movement. He assumes that if the SC left the issue alone and allowed the states to work it out, abortion might be more accepted today and there wouldn't be a sea of anti-choice screamers. Now there are certain parts about his argument that I question, but it is quite intriguing.

You have to wonder whether this really is a wise decision on the part of this legal team.

[sturzl]

And yet abortion is still legal. I, for one, am sick of waiting.

[useyourbrain]

Perhaps the California Supremes did this on purpose since their reasoning is so off base. This very Court overturned the "will of the people" last year when they overturned Prop. 22 which banned gay marriage. So what happened since then?

Roberts and Alito are very young and I think Scalia and Thomas will remain on the Court until there is a Republic president (maybe in 2024). So it could be 10 - 20 years until there is a more balanced Court, if then.

The States can still be worked on but this is a good thing. A Black man is President and Olsen coming over? Hell has frozen over.

[INSIPID]

Well, Scalia is 73, if we can hedge out 12 years of a Democratic presidency (I know that's a HUGE if) then i think we have a good chance of rolling back some of the damage this radical conservative judiciary has done to our nation.

[elfvis]

I agree. For even the ACLU to say that this is ill-timed, I can't help but think this is an attempt to get a federal gay marriage ban.

[SaltySaltillo]

I disagree. The worst outcome possible in taking a case to the SCOTUS is for the SCOTUS to rule that Pro * does not violate the 14th amendment. So where does that leave you? Back where you are today... picking your fights state by state. Losing at the SCOTUS level does not magically overrule what is now the law in Vermont or elsewhere. And to be honest, the notion that you can "game" or time your moment at the SCOTUS is a bit foolish, to me. And if you think Olsen is somehow insincere or not serious - that is a serious suggestion because as a lawyer he has an ethical duty to zealously argue on behalf of his clients, and if he is some secret, closet sabotageur, that is grounds for a serious ethics complaint. I just don't see how any ethical lawyer - and as far as I know Olsen is one - could or would do that.

[Dustee]

So, the republicans want to rebuild their party starting with the gay community. Bush also wanted to add to their party by winning over Latinos. The first thing he did after becoming president was visit Mexico and told their president to send us your poor. But the party rebelled. Lou Dobbs and others repubs were not happy.

I guess it all comes down to the American people (where it should be). I hope the time is now for the gay community.

[IDIOTA]

How come so many seem to believe -- not here at HP -- that only gays support gay marriage?